|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Gun control in the US
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Strikes me that one way of regulating gun access in the states without substantial law change would be to charge high license fees - scaled for lethality of carriage, use or weapon. I.e. Concealed carry permit much more expensive than open carry - semi-automatic handgun much more expensive than a non-automatic hunting rifle.
The permit fees could be spent on compensation fees for anyone shot whilst not in the process of the commission of a felony.
If you can charge thousands for university, when education is a right, and thousands for healthcare when life is a right, surely you can charge thousands for guns if you consider the right to bear arms to be a right. (Also require a paid permit per weapon - reducing hoarding.)
So, you would support a system where self-defense is a right available only to those who can afford it?
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Regardless of what Mitch McConnell and the NRA are screaming, the black helicopters are not coming for your guns. Heller vs. DC clearly established the right to keep and bear arms, and also established that the government does have the right to impose certain kinds of regulations.
quote:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Heller vs DC
The government can't take your guns away. It can tell you how and where you carry only outside your home. It can tell you where you can buy and sell guns. It can deny you a gun only for specific reasons. And as Jon Stewart put it, "No surface-to-air ANYTHING!"
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
omatic hunting rifle.
The permit fees could be spent on compensation fees for anyone shot whilst not in the process of the commission of a felony.
So, you would support a system where self-defense is a right available only to those who can afford it?
A system that rubbish at it? That's like a right to sell a fire alarm that has twice the chance of burning the house down!!!
The NRA example linked had 6 examples of self defence over a month, the first couple made a strong case for a innocent life/property being saved that otherwise wouldn't. But even the purple prose can't disguise them scraping the barrel by the end.
Which can pretty much be matched by incidents with people without a gun defending themselves.
Meanwhile the constant list of people killed by the guns you think are protecting them... (I count 15 described)
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Strikes me that one way of regulating gun access in the states without substantial law change would be to charge high license fees - scaled for lethality of carriage, use or weapon. I.e. Concealed carry permit much more expensive than open carry - semi-automatic handgun much more expensive than a non-automatic hunting rifle.
The permit fees could be spent on compensation fees for anyone shot whilst not in the process of the commission of a felony.
If you can charge thousands for university, when education is a right, and thousands for healthcare when life is a right, surely you can charge thousands for guns if you consider the right to bear arms to be a right. (Also require a paid permit per weapon - reducing hoarding.)
So, you would support a system where self-defense is a right available only to those who can afford it?
As far as I am aware, guns and ammunition are not currently provided free. The 'safe' use of guns described by gun owners on this thread includes training (presumably not free), regular practice with live ammunition (presumably not free), preferably on a range (presumably not free) and keeping ones firearms in a safe (presumably not free).
Self-defense is possible without a fire-arm. The right to defend oneself and the right to bear arms are not one and the same thing.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
So, you would support a system where self-defense is a right available only to those who can afford it?
GUNS ARE FREE?!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
Guns are most certainly not free, but fees for permits is a problem that creates an undue hardship on the poor. If a state allows some form of carrying outside the home/business (most do), why should that be limited only to those who can afford to pay high permit fees? Are only wealthy citizens allowed to protect themselves using "the great equalizer"? Are poor folks unworthy of the trust we'd give someone with a fat wallet? With all the "we should all be equal" tirades that get posted on these boards, I'd think that's one thing that we could all agree on. If a state allows an action, it should be accessible to everyone. Call me old-fashioned, but the 14th amendment still means something to me.
Yes, the shooting sports are generally expensive, especially for people in an urban/suburban landscape who don't have land of their own where they can shoot for free.
Self-defense is different and doesn't have to be expensive. $200 gets you a reliable handgun and functional holster, a couple of boxes of ammo and some range time. Hunter safety classes in most states are free and spend a lot of time on firearms safety. They're generally excellent even for non-hunters. Many local law enforcement agencies offer free or low-cost safety classes. There are many free on-line resources. Lots of the good practice is free. You can do it at home with an unloaded gun to practice drawing from a holster, aligning your sites, controlling your trigger pull, etc. Permit classes in my state can be found for as low as $50. Then the state tacks on another $115, plus $50 every 4 years. It's not terribly unreasonable, but for many people, $115 might as well be $115,000.
Asking law-abiding citizens to pay a fee beyond the cost of printing the ID card and running the fingerprints/background check is wrong.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Guns are most certainly not free, but fees for permits is a problem that creates an undue hardship on the poor.
What about drivers licenses? Car registration? Should that all be free?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I would have thought a right to health care was at LEAST as important as a right to self-defence. So why are people required to pay massive amounts of money for health care?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Self-defense is different and doesn't have to be expensive. $200 gets you a reliable handgun and functional holster, a couple of boxes of ammo and some range time.
[snip]
...but for many people, $115 might as well be $115,000.
Hmm. So $200 dollars is inexpensive, but another $115 "might as well be $115,000"?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought a right to health care was at LEAST as important as a right to self-defence. So why are people required to pay massive amounts of money for health care?
I would lay odds that many who would fight legislation which might raise the cost of gun ownership* also fight health care legislation which lower the cost of care.
*Though I seriously doubt this is the primary reason for the fight.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What do you think about Smart Guns. The BIOMAC technology looks very interesting and the New Jersey 'technology-waiting legislation' seems to be a very important step forward. Would you support such technology and legislation?
In the end, I don't want anything extra that will keep my gun from firing when I need it to. That's why my self-defense firearm of choice is a make/model that has been proven over decades of real-world use, survived excrutiating torture tests that would render many others uselss, and has no extra "features" to get in the way of Draw-Aim-Shoot.
*The one thing I really don't like about BIOMAC is that you need a service center to add in approved users. If I can add/remove authorized users myself, then we have something to work with. The point is to prevent unauthorized access, not limit authorized access. I don't need a service call from my alarm company every time I want to setup a temporary code for my neighbor while I'm on vacation. I just do it.
Something else I'd like to know about BIOMAC is what happens when it is removed? Can a thief just remove the BIOMAC parts, or replace them with traditional parts, perhaps parts made on a 3D printer? If so, a major reason for wanting to legislate its use (stop the flow of stolen firearms) is gone.
Those sound like legitimate concerns. However, surely you (and pro-gun people in general) can allow some leeway in order to make society safer? Or perhaps you can't. I don't know. I am trying to take your temperature to find out whether this might be a good compromise between those who want to limit or ban gun ownership, and those who want everyone to be armed if they choose.
Perhaps it is the magic bullet which will solve the sky-rocketing gun deaths in America. Perhaps it is liberal pie-in-the-sky. The wikipedia article isn't hopeful, since the NRA doesn't support it as it will hamper speed and ease of shooting-at-will, and anti-gun groups don't support it because it makes guns safer and they don't want people thinking guns are safe, because then they might buy more.
Obviously up until now these two points of view have been so diametrically opposed that they can't agree on anything and both sides just seem to make the situation worse. But is there a compromise solution? Or will these two sides just keep trading insults and statistics until everyone is dead or scared to death.
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
You can legislate until the cows come home- it won't solve the problem. As an analogy, let's take driving while intoxicated. It's illegal in every part of the United States, but plenty of people do it, and the vast majority are never caught. What makes anyone think that legislating storage conditions in the home is any more enforceable? (Unless you're advocating a system of in-home visits to check it. That won't fly in the US.)
It doesn't solve the problem, but it starts reducing accidental deaths. DUI behaviour has been reduced, both by legislation, and by public safety campaigns, until now, in many levels of society, it is unthinkable to drive while drunk - considered not just a crime but a social taboo as well. Of course there are always those who don't care, but reduction is the goal, eradication is a pipe dream. And we can see that spot checks are needed I'm afraid - whether this upsets people or not. Many people get annoyed at police demanding breathalyzer tests by the side of the road. But this is a vital part of the system to reduce accidental deaths.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Asking law-abiding citizens to pay a fee beyond the cost of printing the ID card and running the fingerprints/background check is wrong.
Right. The state would never require people to pay anything beyond such costs in order for them to own a house or car, which some people find almost as necessary to their lives as owning a warm gun...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I always think the "people do illegal things anyway" argument is a poor one. It misses the fact that in general, fewer people do illegal things than do legal things.
It's not about reducing the rate to zero. It's about reducing the rate.
And it's simply because people don't do difficult things unless they have a major incentive. Make something more difficult to do, and fewer people can be bothered. Basic risk/reward analysis. We all tend to go for the smoother and simpler path.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right at 100% of everyone who really wants one has one, though.
If that were true there would be no theft of guns.
Then why are televisions ever stolen?
Logic slip. Who said anything about televisions, and what do they have to do with this conversation? Please make whatever point you're trying to make here a little more explicit. Call me stupid if it helps you to feel better.
No logic slip at all. Like guns, everyone who really wants a tv gets one. Yet, tvs are still stolen. Like tvs, guns have a market value and, like tvs, some folks like to have more than one and/or want a better one than what they already have. Stealing a tv or gun is cheaper than buying a tv or gun. Someone stealing a tv or gun doesn't indicate whether or not the thief already has a tv or gun. It only indicates that the thief is a thief.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Those sound like legitimate concerns. However, surely you (and pro-gun people in general) can allow some leeway in order to make society safer? Or perhaps you can't. I don't know. I am trying to take your temperature to find out whether this might be a good compromise between those who want to limit or ban gun ownership, and those who want everyone to be armed if they choose.
I can, but only so long as the leeway doesn't interfere with the functioning of the firearm and a legal owner being able to authorize others at-will. I'm iffy on it if it's something that can be (and will be) defeated by criminals. It would then be pointless for reducing thefts, etc. but could have some benefit in household safety.
I'm somewhat concerned that some people might start taking biotech for granted and stop practicing good safety procedures, much like was described above in car safety tech. "Oh, my gun will only work for my hand, so I can just leave it loaded and laying on the kitchen table by my 3 year old." Or "Go ahead and pull the trigger. It won't fire for you."
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
... I can, but only so long as the leeway doesn't interfere with the functioning of the firearm and a legal owner being able to authorize others at-will. ...
You're assuming that right to keep and bear arms includes the right to let other people use your guns. IANAL, but that makes no sense, because that completely undermines ANY regulations on ownership or possession.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Right. The state would never require people to pay anything beyond such costs in order for them to own a house or car, which some people find almost as necessary to their lives as owning a warm gun...
I presume you're talking about vehicle registration fees and property taxes. I was discussing permit fees. Two different things. One is a tax on what you own. The other is a tax on what you can do.
Like it or not, the 2nd A certainly muddies the water on the issue. SCOTUS has been very clear in McDonald and Heller that it extends to self-defense. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution that you can own a car or real estate. Should we pay a fee to keep the cops from searching our homes at will? Pay an annual "public speaking" permit fee to exercise our 1st ammendment rights? Why not a tax to attend church, or pay a fee to have a jury trial?
My state's drivers license fee is $3.50/year. That's not a hinderance to anyone. The handgun carry permit works out to $28.75/year. that's not crazy either, but higher than it needs to be. DT had suggested higher permit fees which prompted the discussion. To follow her suggestion, a good analogy might be if the state changed its vehicle registration fee from $100/year to $20,000/year in an effort to reduce the cars on the road and thereby reduce accident fatalities. The effect is that driving (which is not a constitutional right) would be only for the wealthy.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Bartelomao
Many people in the U.S. see the right of self-defense to be a fundamental human right. Gun ownership is one means of exercising that right.
Here is the root of the need for guns in a household. They are held to be the necessary means should an intruder come into your house. And it is assumed that the intruder also is armed.
I would suggest a more likely threat would be a fire in the house. How many households have a fire extinguisher to use in an emergency? Are there any extinguisher zealots actively promoting the necessity?
The "right" to have a gun is far deeper in our psyche than the supposed self-defense argument.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, we stop legislating driving whilst intoxicated? Yes, people will break the law, but fewer of them will. Most people obey the law, funny as that may seem. What legislating drunk driving does, besides jailing people, is raise awareness. Things can change. As prosecution and awareness rise, drunk driving deaths drop. So to can death rates by guns.
I actually agree with you here. My analogy may not have been the best, I admit- it falls apart because drunk driving is something that can be observed and dealt with in a public space, because it happens there. Legislating gun safety in the home is virtually impossible to enforce without in-home spot-checks, which would never work in the US.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Good analogy.
Analogy fail noted above. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How about another analogy? Smoke alarms. There's no law requiring anyone to have a smoke alarm in their home
Actually, smoke detectors and CO detectors are mandated here in all homes. That said, it's virtually unenforceable, for the reason I mention above.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought a right to health care was at LEAST as important as a right to self-defence. So why are people required to pay massive amounts of money for health care?
I would lay odds that many who would fight legislation which might raise the cost of gun ownership* also fight health care legislation which lower the cost of care.
*Though I seriously doubt this is the primary reason for the fight.
Not this gun owner. My major beef with Obamacare is that it doesn't go far enough to fix the health care inequality in this country.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
It doesn't solve the problem, but it starts reducing accidental deaths. DUI behaviour has been reduced, both by legislation, and by public safety campaigns, until now, in many levels of society, it is unthinkable to drive while drunk - considered not just a crime but a social taboo as well.
You're on to something here. I'm definitely in favor of educating folks about proper gun safety (and other household safety, for that matter- falls kill more folks than guns, for instance*). I'd love to see a PR campaign on it to the extent we see against drunk driving. Unfortunately, the money that could do that gets spent on the "guns are evil and we should ban them" propaganda.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
IAnd we can see that spot checks are needed I'm afraid - whether this upsets people or not.
If you think folks resist roadside checks, try coming into their homes. Not going to be pretty. Not to mention most likely unconstitutional:
4th Amendment
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I would suggest a more likely threat would be a fire in the house. How many households have a fire extinguisher to use in an emergency? Are there any extinguisher zealots actively promoting the necessity?
I have several, and would like to see them promoted heavily, as noted above- safety campaigns are a great idea, IMHO.
----
(*) Falls actually outrank both "other injuries" (which we can assume to include accidental firearms injuries) and homicide, according to the data here.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
... If you think folks resist roadside checks, try coming into their homes. Not going to be pretty. Not to mention most likely unconstitutional:
4th Amendment
Agreed. So what happens when e.g. someone gets drunk at a private party and crashes on the way home? If they survive, they get charged with drunk driving, and they may lose their driving privileges or have their car seized.
Yes, this is after the fact. However, it also serves as an example to others. So let's say a homeowner has an accidental shooting in their home, and it comes to public attention because e.g. medical treatment is needed, or police attend. Again, IANAL, but I think that would give the government the right - and in terms of public safety, an obligation - to supervise how that person uses guns, at least for a certain period of time.
If there is cause, searches and seizures are perfectly constitutional.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Like guns, everyone who really wants a tv gets one.
I can see you've never been poor, nor imagined what it might be like.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
... If you think folks resist roadside checks, try coming into their homes. Not going to be pretty. Not to mention most likely unconstitutional:
4th Amendment
Agreed. So what happens when e.g. someone gets drunk at a private party and crashes on the way home? If they survive, they get charged with drunk driving, and they may lose their driving privileges or have their car seized.
Yes, this is after the fact. However, it also serves as an example to others. So let's say a homeowner has an accidental shooting in their home, and it comes to public attention because e.g. medical treatment is needed, or police attend. Again, IANAL, but I think that would give the government the right - and in terms of public safety, an obligation - to supervise how that person uses guns, at least for a certain period of time.
If there is cause, searches and seizures are perfectly constitutional.
Here, at least, an accidental shooting in the home definitely brings scrutiny, and a (usually temporary) removal of the gun in question - and it is already illegal to leave a firearm where a child can gain access to it unsupervised. That said, it doesn't seem to have a large-scale effect on the number of kids finding unlocked guns in the home. (As far as I can tell. I'd love to see some hard data, though.)
Making laws, and enforcing them, costs money. My thought is that the money could be better spent on education, in many cases, rather than on new laws of questionable value.
Put another way- you can't legislate stupidity out of existence. All you can do is try to educate as many folks as possible.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Yes, this is after the fact. However, it also serves as an example to others. So let's say a homeowner has an accidental shooting in their home, and it comes to public attention because e.g. medical treatment is needed, or police attend. Again, IANAL, but I think that would give the government the right - and in terms of public safety, an obligation - to supervise how that person uses guns, at least for a certain period of time.
If there is cause, searches and seizures are perfectly constitutional.
You're confusing one-time events with on-going activity. Unless there are felony charges filed and convicted on, or the person is adjudicated as mentally incompetent (or a few other reasons why posession wouldn't be allowed), there is no legal cause for supervision or for entering the home again except for parole if applicable. The cops can only come back again if there is another event demonstrating probable cause.
That's for "in the home". Most states have a permit system for carrying outside the home. In that case, then so far, yes, the states do have the ability to revoke that permit when the person does something stupid and demonstrates they are a likely danger to the public. That's very rare, but it does happen. Some states have what is referred to as "Constitutional Carry" which means the state has decided that all of its inhabitants who are not otherwise prohibited from posessing a firearm, may carry without a permit.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
quote:
originally posted by Bartelomao
Many people in the U.S. see the right of self-defense to be a fundamental human right. Gun ownership is one means of exercising that right.
Here is the root of the need for guns in a household. They are held to be the necessary means should an intruder come into your house. And it is assumed that the intruder also is armed.
Not necessarily. In a household context, firearms provide defense against intruders pursuing an agenda of violence by means of superior physical strength, superior numbers, or with the use of various other kinds of weapons besides firearms.
quote:
I would suggest a more likely threat would be a fire in the house. How many households have a fire extinguisher to use in an emergency? Are there any extinguisher zealots actively promoting the necessity?
I have one large fire extinguisher on each floor plus two extra in the garage and one extra in the laundry. If there were a serious attempt by the government to outlaw fire extinguishers, I would rise up in opposition. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
The "right" to have a gun is far deeper in our psyche than the supposed self-defense argument.
Sure, depending on the individual, just as freedom of the press is far deeper in our psyche than its supposed purpose of making government accountable.
Self-defense as a human right is the intellectual foundation of the right enumerated in the U.S. constitution to keep and bear arms. People keep and bear arms for myriad other lawful purposes as well.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Monkeylizard, please explain how reducing supply equals taking. Please explain how this is any different from the long-standing ban on machine guns. Please show us examples of "taking" during the previous ban.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
The previous ban is not particularly germane here- Sen. Feinstein has publicly stated her new ban will be far more comprehensive, to include a federal firearms registry.
Historically speaking, registries tend to lead to confiscations.
I'll be interested to see the actual text of the bill, as soon as she officially introduces it. For all interested parties, bills before the U. S. Congress can be searched and read here.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Like guns, everyone who really wants a tv gets one.
I can see you've never been poor, nor imagined what it might be like.
99% of households seem to have one.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Historically speaking, registries tend to lead to confiscations.
Which is why no one owns a private vehicle in the U.S. anymore. They were all confiscated once so-called "vehicle registration" was enacted.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Historically speaking, registries tend to lead to confiscations.
Which is why no one owns a private vehicle in the U.S. anymore. They were all confiscated once so-called "vehicle registration" was enacted.
How pedantic of you. Here:
Historically speaking, gun registration leads to confiscation.
Better? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Yes, since registration of guns in some American states has been enacted, all the guns in those states are gone. Oh, wait, they are not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Historically speaking, gun registration leads to confiscation.
Better?
Would you care to outline these historical examples?
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
Sure. Here's a couple:
In the UK.
(I know, it's the NRA. But the article seems pretty sound, so I included it.)
In Canada. This one is particularly egregious, frankly- people who owned what was a perfectly legal firearm under Canadian law were suddenly told it was now illegal and to turn it in- using the registry to let them know.
Those are from a quick search- I'm sure more examples could be found if folks want to dig deeper.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Neither of those countries has a 2nd Amendment.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Neither of those countries has a 2nd Amendment.
Neither will we, if some folks get their way.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
In Canada. This one is particularly egregious, frankly- people who owned what was a perfectly legal firearm under Canadian law were suddenly told it was now illegal and to turn it in- using the registry to let them know.
I'm pretty sure that a vehicle registry would be used in exactly the same way if the government suddenly decided that a previously-legal model of car was now illegal and had to be removed from the roads. There's nothing unique about gun registration in this regard.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure that a vehicle registry would be used in exactly the same way if the government suddenly decided that a previously-legal model of car was now illegal and had to be removed from the roads. There's nothing unique about gun registration in this regard.
Possibly. If there was a well-funded, vocal, sometimes fanatical anti-car movement in the U.S., I might be worried about that. That movement already exists with regards to firearms. (There actually is a vocal and fanatical anti-car movement, at least around here, but they're tiny, unfunded, and not much of a threat.)
There's also a difference between "removed from the roads" (a public space) and "illegal to possess" (controlling people's homes and private property).
It would be just as wrong to do with cars as it is with guns, for what it's worth.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
It seems to me that it's not the registration which leads to the confiscation, but the operation of increasingly tight legal restrictions. Yet those tighter laws are being passed by a democratically elected government, with the support of the people, and so these laws would be passed regardless of the issue of registration.
And of course, being good, law-abiding citizens, if stricter laws about ownership were enacted, owners of such guns would surrender them. So the registration merely makes it easier for the authorities to notify people of their legal obligations.
In Switzerland, as I understand it, guns do have to be registered when they are sold, yet many (nearly all?) households have a gun. Thus I don't think it is feasible to argue that registration inevitably leads to confiscation.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
In Switzerland, as I understand it, guns do have to be registered when they are sold, yet many (nearly all?) households have a gun. Thus I don't think it is feasible to argue that registration inevitably leads to confiscation.
It is if you're paranoid.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
It seems to me that it's not the registration which leads to the confiscation, but the operation of increasingly tight legal restrictions. Yet those tighter laws are being passed by a democratically elected government, with the support of the people, and so these laws would be passed regardless of the issue of registration.
And of course, being good, law-abiding citizens, if stricter laws about ownership were enacted, owners of such guns would surrender them. So the registration merely makes it easier for the authorities to notify people of their legal obligations.
Registration makes it possible to enforce the tighter restrictions. Whether or not they are the will of the people is debatable- the bureaucracy known as the BATFE isn't an elected body, yet holds considerable power to define what is or isn't a machine gun, for instance.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Neither of those countries has a 2nd Amendment.
Neither will we, if some folks get their way.
I hope that the smiley means you acknowledge there is absolutely zero possibility of amending the USA Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment.
If the smiley, however, means that you don't believe your government generally respects the rule of law and the rights of its citizens, then that's a whole different conversation that goes far beyond guns. That's the conversation about organizing an anti-government militia and building a walled community in Idaho and stocking up on Campbell's soup and Clif bars and waiting for the black helicopters to show up. That's the conversation that claims that if European Jews had guns they could have stopped Hitler, or if Negroes had guns, they wouldn't have been slaves. That's the conversation that says stupid things like the Secret Service should disarm first, or that citizens should have the same weapons as the police and armed forces.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Registration makes it possible to enforce the tighter restrictions.
Of course. That's as it should be. Why should a supposedly law-abiding citizen think that's a bad thing?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Neither of those countries has a 2nd Amendment.
Neither will we, if some folks get their way.
I hope that the smiley means you acknowledge there is absolutely zero possibility of amending the USA Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment.
That's exactly what it means. A joking aside, nothing more.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That's the conversation about organizing an anti-government militia and building a walled community in Idaho and stocking up on Campbell's soup and Clif bars and waiting for the black helicopters to show up.
I'd prefer kipper snacks, ramen noodles, and Jameson, if you don't mind. But I agree, that's a whole other conversation- generally held with folks that have a reality deficit.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Registration makes it possible to enforce the tighter restrictions.
Of course. That's as it should be. Why should a supposedly law-abiding citizen think that's a bad thing?
Simply because although I'm law-abiding, I'm not sure some other folks -including, at times, the federal government- are. The federal government settled wrongful death lawsuits after the Ruby Ridge fiasco, which seems to indicate the FBI and ATF acted unlawfully. To say nothing of previous governmental breaches of federal law- COINTELPRO, for example.
Let me be clear here- I'm not advocating anything that the Weavers did at Ruby Ridge, either. I'm simply saying the federal agencies involved overstepped the bounds of the law, and that a firearm registration program makes it easier to do so in the future. And while one can take to the courts to redress the wrongs committed, it's a lot harder to do when you're dead.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Simply because although I'm law-abiding, I'm not sure some other folks -including, at times, the federal government- are. The federal government settled wrongful death lawsuits after the Ruby Ridge fiasco, which seems to indicate the FBI and ATF acted unlawfully. To say nothing of previous governmental breaches of federal law- COINTELPRO, for example.
Let's not forget Wounded Knee, either. I believe in the theory that if they do it to anybody, they'll do it anybody. OMMV.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Monkeylizard, please explain how reducing supply equals taking. Please explain how this is any different from the long-standing ban on machine guns. Please show us examples of "taking" during the previous ban.
Because 1932's NFA made all machine guns (and other stuff) registered. 1968's GCA required serial#s on all firearms (a good thing). 1984's machine gun ban stopped importation and manufacture, but left the existing supply (raised prices). This one expands all of those to include a whole lot of items that are not remotely close to machine guns and casts 1994's AWB net much more broadly. Does anyone besides me see a pattern here? Someone's playing the long game and it's not the NRA.
This bill goes on to authorize a buyback program (sound familiar?), expands serial# requirements beyond the firearms themselves, bans the sale/transfer of certain grandfathered items (keep them til you die, then the gov't gets them), and has a "safe storage" requirement that can't really be enforced without violating the 4th amendment.
The bold part is the "taking" part. It may be a while, but that's the goal. Make no mistake about that.
That long game includes making ownership so difficult, expensive, and frustrating that new people don't bother. Give it enough time and the 2nd A can be repealed too because it won't mean anything except to the fortunate few who can afford it and/or had ancestors with the foresight to do the legal wrangling needed to be able to pass them down. I know some of you say "good riddance", but don't ever wonder why I think that's what the ultimate goal is.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Registration makes it possible to enforce the tighter restrictions.
Sure. It also makes it possible to enforce existing restrictions. It also makes it possible to return items to their rightful owners. It makes possible a lot of things.
Registration is data.
My local bus card is registered. The purpose is to be able to return my bus card to me if I lose it, or to give me the authority to cancel it if someone else is misusing it. Not to take it off me.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Monkeylizard, please explain how reducing supply equals taking. Please explain how this is any different from the long-standing ban on machine guns. Please show us examples of "taking" during the previous ban.
Because 1932's NFA made all machine guns (and other stuff) registered. 1968's GCA required serial#s on all firearms (a good thing). 1984's machine gun ban stopped importation and manufacture, but left the existing supply (raised prices). This one expands all of those to include a whole lot of items that are not remotely close to machine guns and casts 1994's AWB net much more broadly. Does anyone besides me see a pattern here? Someone's playing the long game and it's not the NRA.
This bill goes on to authorize a buyback program (sound familiar?), expands serial# requirements beyond the firearms themselves, bans the sale/transfer of certain grandfathered items (keep them til you die, then the gov't gets them), and has a "safe storage" requirement that can't really be enforced without violating the 4th amendment.
The bold part is the "taking" part. It may be a while, but that's the goal. Make no mistake about that.
That long game includes making ownership so difficult, expensive, and frustrating that new people don't bother. Give it enough time and the 2nd A can be repealed too because it won't mean anything except to the fortunate few who can afford it and/or had ancestors with the foresight to do the legal wrangling needed to be able to pass them down. I know some of you say "good riddance", but don't ever wonder why I think that's what the ultimate goal is.
We clearly have different notions of the word 'taking' at work here. You're operating on the idea of taking from society. And that's certainly the goal.
Other people are talking about taking from individuals.
I'd be genuinely curious whether you think there is some collective right to bear arms, rather than a series of individuals rights.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We clearly have different notions of the word 'taking' at work here. You're operating on the idea of taking from society. And that's certainly the goal.
Other people are talking about taking from individuals.
I'd be genuinely curious whether you think there is some collective right to bear arms, rather than a series of individuals rights.
I'm not sure I follow you. Society is made up the individuals. You can't take from one without taking from both.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
But your notion of the goal of taking only makes sense at the societal level.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But your notion of the goal of taking only makes sense at the societal level.
OK, I think I follow. I do indeed believe that Feinstein and her ilk want to disarm society as a whole. To do that, they have to restrict the individuals.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
